Subject:
|
Re: Problems with Christianity
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 22 Dec 2000 20:38:48 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1082 times
|
| |
|
|
<much indiscriminate snippage>
I want to figure out what the heck we're debating. As far as I can tell,
we're all over the map. :)
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, you:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, me:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, you:
> > > A simple difference of opinion. My argument is based on:
I may be making assumptions myself, here. What *is* your argument? It
looks like you're trying to show that premise (1) christian morality and
premise (2) your morality are logically incompatable.
Is that it?
Or are you trying to logically refute premise (1)?
I'm really not sure, but I'll endeavour to pick at your logic. ;)
> > > 1. Under Christian assumption, morality/fairness/truth is universal. I.E.
> > > what's good for me is good for you is good for anyone, etc. Reason: given.
I guess, to move back to a more basic level, I think the premise is
imprecise. Please define universal. Also, please pick one of the three
(morality/fairness/truth) to work with.
> As Steve would probably point out, salvation is not based on works-- God
> would be able to see into your heart to see *IF* you *WERE* rich, what you
> would do.
This is an aside, and I should, in the interests of not point-scoring,
ignore it, but I'm a flawed individual.<G> What does salvation have to do
with morality? We aren't talking about salvation here, we're talking about
the universality of morality/fairness/truth.
> > > 2. Under my morality (which I hold to be unflawed, obviously for
> > > un-back-upuable reasons, again obviously), all humans should have equal
> > > ability to learn morality/truth. Reason: given.
> >
> > Do you mean ability, or do you mean opportunity? It's a semantic
> > difference, but a huge one.
> >
> > If you do mean ability, would you hold that people with various disabling or
> > limiting conditions is an example of God violating morality?
>
> This is a tricky area because I'm not actually speaking about my own
> morality... But, I do mean ability.
>
> To go back to my version of morality, though, since morality is NOT
> universal and is in fact individualistic (and variable with time and
> experience, nonetheless!), all people DO have access to it. However, it's no
> longer some tangible goal that differs in different degrees in different
> people. So the question as it actually relates to MY view is kinda... odd...
> because I don't hold with the 1st premise I stated in this line of reasoning.
>
> BUT, assuming I DID hold with the possibility for universal moraltiy, I'm
> not sure what I would mean. Probably ability.
You don't.... then... umm.... <shakes head to clear confusion.> Ok. Before
I try and figure this part out, I'll wait for the answer to the question I
ask up above.
> > > 3. If morality is universal, and my morality is unflawed, my assumption
> > > should hold true to every being in the universe. Reason: based on 1 & 2.
> > > 4. Christians also assume that God exists. Reason: given.
> > > 5. God is therefore 'bound' to universal morality (lest He change it, I
> > > suppose, but assuming He doesn't, he's bound to it) Reason: based on 1 & 4.
> >
> > You have an implicit assumption (a big one!) somewhere up to this point that
> > morality can apply to God. God does not necessarily have the same moral
> > obligation as a human; he may have the same moral obligation as say, gravity.
>
> Most definitely. But find me a Christian who would argue otherwise.
So found. Yer talking to one. :)
> I would hold (were I Christian) that it would be akin to playing a game one
> had invented. If I invent the game of chess, I won't suddenly start moving my
> rooks diagonally or else I'm not playing the game I invented.
Oooh, thanks for the metaphor! As the creator of chess, are you obligated
to always move in a diagonal? Of course not, you aren't a bishop, and
aren't bound by the same rules.
> Sure, I can change the rules, but assuming I don't (universal morality/universal rules to chess which implies no change, perhaps I should
> have stated that) then I'm bound to the rules. Basically, for God to be able
> to violate good, someone who followed Jesus' teachings to the exact letter
> and spirit COULD go to Hell if God felt like it, which, again, I'm sure no
> Christian would argue. God would not be arbitrary in matters of things like
> salvation. But maybe I should have specified another step in there
> somewhere...
This I think stems from a misunderstanding about what you mean by
"universal" in premise (1).
I'm going to snip the rest of the back-and-forth until we sort out our
confusion at the premise level.
This is fun. :)
James
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Problems with Christianity
|
| (...) Too much! you gotta at least leave who you're talking with... The tree view, of course, has already overflowed and we can't see context clearly... (...) Suggest you leave that as a name rather than a personal pronoun... (...) Ditto. Hope that (...) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Problems with Christianity
|
| (...) That's the trouble with jumping into the middle of these kinds of things :) I'll see if I can describe it again-- see further down... (...) In this particular part of my post where I bring this up, I'm addressing the issue of fairness as I see (...) (24 years ago, 23-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Problems with Christianity
|
| (...) I would argue no. I think the Christian argument would probably be that there IS equality in those that it is applying to insofar as it is concerned. I.E. we all start from the same standpoint insofar as morality matters. (...) I believe it is (...) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
298 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
